Thread: Russia seizes US arms cache in Georgia

Russia seizes US arms cache in Georgia
Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:51:04 GMT



Georgia's Saakashvili hands over a US-made M4 Carbine to soldier

A Russian military spokesman says Russian forces have seized a large cache of US-made weapons in the western city of Senaki in Georgia.

"In Senaki, we seized a large arsenal of weapons including 664 US-made M-16 rifles" and a number of M-40 sniper rifles, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn told a news conference in Moscow.

"There were 1,728 weapons total," he added.

Earlier on Wednesday, US President George W. Bush sent a C-17 airlifter to deliver 'humanitarian supplies' to Georgia.

"And in the days ahead we will use US aircraft as well as naval forces to deliver humanitarian and medical supplies," Bush announced.

Shortly after the announcement, Russia expressed concern that US military cargo planes could be delivering more than just humanitarian aid to Georgia.

"Let us ask the Americans to convince us that the cargo on board these planes is indeed humanitarian aid. Why don't they lift the curtain on what is being delivered?" Deputy Head of Russia's General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn said.

Andrei Nesterenko, the Russian Foreign Ministry's spokesman, said that the navy was not 'the best way' to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia.

The United States is Georgia's principal military supporter, and has provided the country with significant quantities of military aid in recent years.

As the conflict between Russia and Georgia enters its second week, Russia's president Dmitry Medvedev signed a ceasefire deal on Saturday. However, Russian forces have yet to withdraw from Georgia.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66 ... =351020602

Source: Secret IDF material went unguarded in Georgia

Former Israeli soldier returns disillusioned from training Georgian soldiers for company owned by Brig.-Gen. Hirsch in preparation for war with Russia; says confidential army material such as charts, officers' names was revealed to foreign troops

Nava Tzuriel Published: 08.16.08, 15:47 / Israel News

Tomer (alias), formerly a soldier of an elite IDF unit, returned from Georgia a short while ago. He was enlisted by Defensive Shield, a company owned and operated by Brigadier General (Res.) Gal Hirsch, to help train Georgian soldiers for battle, but returned disappointed in the manner in which the company handles secret army material.

Hirsch's company was responsible for training an elite search and rescue unit, and training was handled by the companies of two other reserve officers, all of which hired ex-soldiers like Tomer. This resulted in hundreds of former IDF soldiers working as trainers in Georgia over the past few months.

Tomer said he and his friends had at first received guidelines for the handling of covert material, listing what they could and couldn't tell Georgian soldiers about IDF activities. But in actuality, he said, the Georgians were told top secret information.

"When I arrived in the operations room I saw a book of IDF safety instructions that shouldn't have been there," he said. "There were IDF CDs that explicitly said, 'Confidential' documenting army activities, charts from special units' operations, and officers' names." He added that the room was not guarded, making this information easily obtainable to everyone.

Tomer said the main reason for the infidelity was mercenary. "The training companies wanted to finish the projects as quickly as possible in order to create more projects and make more money," he said. "We knew the training had to be completed quickly because the soldiers would soon have to get into real military activity."

He added that the Georgian officers told their soldiers they would be going to help NATO forces in Iraq, while the real objective was Ossetia and Abkhazia.

According to Tomer, Gal Hirsch came to visit the trainers now and then, but was mostly absent. And when the training was officially over, Tomer did not feel that his soldiers were ready for war. "By Israeli standards, the soldiers had almost zero capability and the officers were mediocre," he said. "It was clear that taking that army to war was illogical."

By keeping in touch with one of his soldiers, Tomer discovered that most of the men he had trained had indeed been killed in the war. "Some of them became good friends of mine and invited me into their homes. It's hard to digest that these people have suddenly vanished from the face of the earth," he lamented.

Defense Shield stated in response that "all of the company's actions were approved by the Defense Ministry, including the materials transferred to the training companies. The information security standards were set, emphasized, and maintained by experienced security officers, and we have no knowledge of these claims."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C73 ... %2C00.html

Attack on Georgia Gives Boost To Big U.S. Weapons Programs

Conflict With Russia Bolsters the Case For More Funding

By AUGUST COLE
August 16, 2008; Page A6

Russia's attack on Georgia has become an unexpected source of support for big U.S. weapons programs, including flashy fighter jets and high-tech destroyers, that have had to battle for funding this year because they appear obsolete for today's conflicts with insurgent opponents.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has spent much of the year attempting to rein in some of the military's most expensive and ambitious weapons systems -- like the $143 million F-22 Raptor jet -- because he thinks they are unsuitable for the lightly armed and hard-to-find militias, warlords and terrorist groups the U.S. faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been opposed by an array of political interests and defense companies that want to preserve these multibillion-dollar programs and the jobs they create.



The Zumwalt class destroyer (left) and the F-22 Raptor.

When Russia's invading forces choked roads into Georgia with columns of armored vehicles and struck targets from the air, it instantly bolstered the case being made by some that the Defense Department isn't taking the threat from Russia and China seriously enough. If the conflict in Georgia continues and intensifies, it could make it easier for defense companies to ensure the long-term funding of their big-ticket items.

For example, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, quickly seized on the Russia situation this week, saying that it indicates the Russians see the toll that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking on the U.S. military.

"We've spent so many resources and so much attention on Iraq that we've lost sight of future threats down the road. The current conflict between Russia and Georgia is a perfect example," said Rep. Murtha during a recent visit to his district.

Some Wall Street stock analysts early on saw the invasion as reason to make bullish calls on the defense sector. A report from JSA Research in Newport, R.I., earlier in the week called the invasion "a bell-ringer for defense stocks."

Mr. Gates himself said this week that the new conflict will cause the U.S. to rethink its strategic relationship with Russia. At a briefing on Thursday, Mr. Gates said the U.S. has no intention of using force in Georgia, nor does it seek a reprise of the Cold War. He did make clear, however, that Russia appears to be punishing Georgia, which has flirted with North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership, for aligning itself with the West and is warning other former Soviet states.

Until now, Mr. Gates has been the central focus of a pitched battle over where the U.S. should spend its defense funds: on conventional weapons needed for traditional opponents or preparing to fight insurgent groups and terrorists.

At an event in Colorado earlier this year, Mr. Gates complained that the military services have "too much of a tendency towards what might be called "Next-War-itis" -- the propensity of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict." In response, he has led an effort to seek or consider reductions to a long list of prominent programs that seemed geared toward the wars of the past.

High on Mr. Gates's list of less-relevant programs has been the F-22 Raptor, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. with help from Boeing Co. and others. The F-22 is considered the Air Force's best fighter jet, but Mr. Gates rebuked the Air Force earlier this year for doggedly pursuing it at a time when it hasn't flown missions over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another program under attack has been Future Combat Systems, a futuristic $160 billion effort to modernize the Army with new hardware and electronic gizmos. Lead contractors Boeing and SAIC Inc. have repeatedly retooled the program, hoping to avoid being accused by Mr. Gates of having "Next-War-itis."

At the same time, the Navy is backing off from building its most expensive destroyers in favor of a less technically risky, and cheaper, existing design. Changing course, the Navy wants two, not seven, futuristic DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers that the Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost as much as $5 billion apiece. Instead of those destroyers, it wants cheaper vessels better suited to missile defense and antisubmarine missions in the open ocean.

Amid uncertainty about how the next administration will view any of these programs, defense-industry officials have been fighting hard to keep them moving forward -- hoping they will at some point be so far along that they can't be killed or seriously curtailed. A common refrain has been that the next administration will realize how dangerous the world is once the commander in chief gets briefed on the myriad threats to U.S. interests.

The change in administration comes at a time of record profits and sales in the industry, reflecting historic highs in defense spending. Yet budget pressure is already undeniable. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan require laying out almost $12 billion a month and the Pentagon faces a massive tab for repairing and overhauling equipment when troops start coming home.

Now, the Russian situation makes the debate over the equipping of the U.S. military a front-burner issue. "The threat always drives procurement," said a defense-industry official. "It doesn't matter what party is in office."

Mr. Gates's approach was recently codified in a Defense Department strategy document emphasizing a balance between developing capabilities to carry out unconventional warfare missions while fielding forces capable of handily defeating adversaries like Russia's or China's militaries.

It rankles Michael Dunn, president and chief executive of the Air Force Association, who said that Mr. Gates's "Next-War-itis" criticism can be countered with the argument that his strategy's focus on fighting insurgents at the expense of another big military is "This-War-itis."

Mr. Dunn, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, said that if U.S. F-16 and F-18 fighters were carrying out combat missions over Georgia, they would be in grave danger from highly advanced Russian surface-to-air missiles on the border that a newer plane like the F-22 can evade. "The debate has got to shift as a result of this war," said Mr. Dunn.

Even before Russia's invasion, there were signs the Air Force's arguments haven't been lost on lawmakers. Just before Congress recessed, Mr. Murtha's subcommittee said it would fund an additional $523 million toward the purchase of 20 more F-22 fighters beyond what the White House asked for.

Write to August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1218849 ... lenews_wsj

Shortly after the announcement, Russia expressed concern that US military cargo planes could be delivering more than just humanitarian aid to Georgia.

"Let us ask the Americans to convince us that the cargo on board these planes is indeed humanitarian aid. Why don't they lift the curtain on what is being delivered?" Deputy Head of Russia's General Staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn said.

Please, of course we're going to provide arms to our allies when necessary. Does Russia let us know what they provide to Cuba? Did they let us know what they were providing to our communist enemies in Viet Nam? China and Russia have never allowed their arms deals to become public knowledge, why should we?

Furthermore, last time I checked we didn't answer to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R)!

More propaganda directly out of Russia.

Please, of course we're going to provide arms to our allies when necessary. Does Russia let us know what they provide to Cuba? Did they let us know what they were providing to our communist enemies in Viet Nam? China and Russia have never allowed their arms deals to become public knowledge, why should we?

It's the pot calling the kettle black but it's time people see the truth on both sides.

This Country must be doing pretty good financially to be pumping in arms to foreign countries...

It is my tax dollars I am concerned about... I could care less if others dont care... be we payed for it ... nuff said